Writing

Research note · 10 Mar 2025

Which values to choose for gl and gs?

Comparing orbital and spin contributions to calculated M1 strength functions.

Reading time3 minutes
ProjectKSHELL and GPUs
In progress

The gyromagnetic ratios determine how strongly the nuclear magnetic dipole moment interacts with the electromagnetic field, which directly affects the M1 transition strength. They show up in the M1M1 operator as

M1^=gLL^+gSS^.\hat{M1} = g_L \hat{L} + g_S \hat{S}.

Protons and neutrons have different gyromagnetic ratios. The orbital motion of a charged particle produces a magnetic moment. Since only protons have charge, they alone contribute to the orbital part of the nuclear magnetic moment. The magnetic moment of a moving charge is given by

μ=q2mL.\mu = \frac{q}{2m}L.

To compensate for various shortcomings of shell model calculations, like truncations and inert cores, it is possible to set the orbital g-factor for neutron to a non-zero number. This is is done in some cases for the sdpfsdg-mu interaction (like here where it is set to 0.1-0.1: https://doi.org/10.1103/csx6-6g5k). More commonly, the spin g-factors for protons and neutrons are often “quenched” in shell model calculations, in which case the free gsg_s values of 5.5855.585 and 3.826-3.826 for protons and neutrons respectively, are multiplied with a factor that is typically between 0.70.7 and 11 depending on the interaction. See the nuclear shell model interaction overview for details.

What we can do is to artificially set the g-factors to zero to see what effect is has on the M1 strength function.

gsf m1 gl gs comparison

In dark red and in orange we have “only glg_l” and “only gsg_s” where I have set gs=0g_s = 0 and gl=0g_l = 0 respectively. In the low energy region of approx 020-2 MeV we see that the LL and SS term play almost exactly the same role. As the gamma energy increases past 22 MeV however, we see that the “only gsg_s” part is increasingly doing the full duty of producing the M1 strength.

LL and SS are vector quantities which means that calculating the LL and SS parts separately and them adding them together does not work. That’s because to get the GSF we have to calculate

B(M1)=(fM1^i)22Ji+1B(M1) = \frac{|(f|\hat{M1}|i)|^2}{2J_i + 1}

and expanding that square we get

(fM1^i)2=((fgLL^i)+(fgSS^i))2|(f|\hat{M1}|i)|^2 = (|(f|g_L\hat{L}|i) + (f|g_S\hat{S}|i)|)^2

and dubbing the first term MLM_L and the second term MSM_S we get

=ML2+MS2+2MLMS= M_L^2 + M_S^2 + 2M_L M_S

where the cross-term 2MLMS2M_L M_S is the important part. Naively summing ML2+MS2M_L^2 + M_S^2 is exactly the green line in the figure. From 0 to 5.2 MeV the naive sum underestimates the properly summed M1 strength meaning that there is constructive interference between the LL and SS terms that is not included, aka 2MLMS2M_L M_S is positive. While beyond 5.25.2 MeV it is the opposite.

interference angle

In the figure above I have calculated the average interference angle between LL and SS. If you visualise a simple xy-plane with two vectors in it, you can imagine that if the vectors are at 90 degrees their 2MLMS2M_L M_S is equal to zero. If the angle is less than 90 then the cross-term is positive aka. constructive interference and vice versa for angles greater than 90.